On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
> But empirically,
> that's not true yet, and the way to get there is for you guys to
> continue kicking ass, not for "pylab" to legislate something. Trying
> would alienate people. So it's just a process and scope objection,
> nothing to do with the notebook idea at all.
Well, but the point of pylab *is* partly to 'legislate', since we're
defining a spec. So it's a valid, relevant and I would argue
important question. My contention is that
- *not* putting *a* notebook system into the spec is a mistake,
- if one is going to go in, the ipython one is the sensible choice.
Of course, the overall community may disagree and decide that they
want pylab to be a spec that stays bounded by the 'shell + editor/ide'
idea.
I contend that's a mistake akin to saying that Octave is an
intellectually interesting project, but I only have one vote here out
of many.
BTW, Sage has (IMHO opinion wisely, and we've obviously learned a ton
from their work) squarely made the choice that putting a notebook
system front and center in their efforts is the right approach. They
have 6 years of empirical success backing that. I may not agree with
William on all his choices, but I always take my hat off to his
willingness to shoot crazy high and risk failure.
Cheers,
f